Sudhir Pandey v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80140 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30120 Year-2014 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== SUDHIR PANDEY Son of Suresh Pandey Resident of Village - Samsher Nagar, P.O. - Samsher Nagar, P.S.- Daudnagar, Distt - Aurangabad (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar Bihar 2.
Uma Shankar Gupta Son of Late Sukhdeo Narayan Gupta Resident of Mohalla - Mitra Sweets Gali Jewellors, Chitkohra Bazar, P.S.- Gardanibagh, Distt - Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Purushotam Sharma, Advocate Mr.Rajesh Roy, Advocate Mr.Amish Kumar No.1, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 25-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 08.06.2015 and Complaint Case No. 30120(C) of 2014 where the J.M.1st Class, Patna took cognizance under Sections 406, 418, 120B and 506 of the IPC.
3. The allegation in the complaint is that the complainant and the accused no. 1 and 2 are own brother. The ancestral property was sold by accused no. 1 and 2 to accused nos. 3 to 8
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80140 of 2019 dt.25-06-2026 2/3 dishonestly. The petitioner is accused no. 8 who was the purchaser of the property.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that he had purchased the land from accused no. 1 and 2, namely, Daya Shankar Gupta and Uday Shankar Gupta by Sale Deed No. 5384 after giving due consideration money on dated 26.07.2014.
5. That the case of the complainant in the S.A. is very specific. He states that his brother Uday Shankar Gupta and Daya Shankar Gupta sold the joint property of the house to the petitioner and others without partition.
6. Learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed quashing of the order of cognizance dated 08.06.2015.
7. It is the understanding of the Court sale of an undivided property to a third person only allows that person to enter into the shoes of the seller. Nobody can transfer a better title than he has. If the property fall within the share of the sellers in the newly constituted partition, the petitioner shall retain his title and if not so he will not get the title. In such situation the complaint is not only meaningless but also is out an out civil dispute for which criminal prosecution has been lodged to pressurize the other side. Consequent thereupon, the order of cognizance dated 08.06.2015
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80140 of 2019 dt.25-06-2026 3/3 passed in connection with Patna Complaint Case No. 30120 of 2014 by the learned J.M.1st Class, Patna is quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned.
8. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed. (Ansul, J) abhishekkr/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 29.06.2026 Transmission Date 29.06.2026